January 11, 2017

UPDATE 1: Trump has "great respect for freedom of the press and all of that." He expresses admiration for the news outlets that refrained from reporting on the salacious dossier.

2: "We're going to have a very elegant day" on the inauguration, with lots of military bands.

3: "It's an asset if Putin likes Trump," because we need Russia's help fighting ISIS.

4. "Does anyone really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way."

5. He could run his company and serve as President at the same time and do great, but he doesn't want to do that.

6. Trump's lawyer explains the structure set up to separate Trump from his business "empire" ("hundreds of entities"). She stresses that this isn't legally required, but voluntarily. Trump is giving up all management authorities "for the duration" of his administration. The sons — Don and Eric — are given all power. Ivanka will have no further involvement with the organization. Trump's assets will be held in a trust. Many details about what will be in that Trust. Many liquid assets have been sold. Many deals canceled, losing millions. No foreign deals will be made during the administration. There will be an ethics adviser scrutinizing any domestic deals (from which Trump will be walled off).

7. Why not sell everything? Selling the brand "Trump" would create more dangers of exploiting the presidency. Ending the brand would be throwing away immense wealth. Other options are also dismissed as unrealistic.
8. The lawyer (Sheri Dillion) addresses the Emoluments Clause. First, the clause "has never been held to apply to fair value exchanges that have absolutely nothing to do with an officeholder." Paying for a hotel room isn't a gift, but an exchange of money for hotel accommodations. That's not an emolument. It doesn't require Trump to do something in his role as President. But Trump will go beyond what the Constitution requires and voluntarily donate all profit from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury.

9. The lawyer ends by reminding us that the people elected Trump knowing of his business interests and perhaps favoring him because of them.

10. Trump is back at the lectern. Asked about Obamacare, he says the "easiest thing" would be to sit back and watch it implode, but that wouldn't be fair to the American people.

11. Mexico is going to pay for the wall. And it's going to be a wall, not a fence. The wall will go forward immediately, then the deal will be made, with Mexico reimbursing us.

12. I think he said he'd announce the Supreme Court pick on Monday. Soon anyway. He said he believes the Supreme Court was one of the reasons he was elected: People did not like what was going on with the Supreme Court.

13. Buzzfeed is "a failing pile of garbage." On the next question, the Buzzfeed guy [or was it a CNN guy?] is yelling "Since you are attacking us," he should get the next question. Trump says: "No, not you. Your organization is terrible... Don't be rude... No, I'm not going to give you a question. You are fake news."

14. There will be no "reset button." A "piece of plastic... guy looked at her like what is she doing?"

15. His last line, obviously planned, was that after 8 years he'll look at what Don and Eric have done with his companies and if they haven't done a good job he'll say: "You're fired."

It hasn't started yet. So I'll go off topic in hopes that Ann will read this and write a post about it.

A prominent Same Sex marriage backer/advocate is now trying to get the IRS to strip the tax exemption of the Mormon church because they are proponents of traditional marriage. Karster, I think his name is, is advertising in Utah trying to get people to lie and smear the LDS church, and build a dossier that he wants to take to the IRS to decertify the LDS church.

While I have every confidence he will fail, this is a new step in the war being waged by the LGBT lobby.

I would love for Ann to address some of these things, in particular the attempts to remove the ABA accreditation of BYU's J. Reuben Clark law school because BYU, a Mormon school, does not accept same sex marriage.

Are these tactics legitimate or is this gross abuse of power and a massive, blatant attack on core American values by the LGBT and its leftist enablers? I do remember the "Same sex marriage will never harm anyone!" that was promised by the LGBT supporters. Guess they lied.--Vance

Trump arrives with a lot of baggage. It's not going to disappear overnight. I hear he peed on Vince Foster while shooting him in the park in a dispute over a false birth certificate. I think I might hire some investigators to look into it.

There are too many provisions that send you off to a worksheet for some calculation that doesn't apply to you and will end up changing nothing but you don't know that when you're sent off to the worksheet. (enter line X subtract the above calculation add this other calculation and enter the result on line Y. X winds up being the same as Y.)

Let turbotax do that. Nobody has the time anymore. That's what you learn from a tax return.

If you learn very little from a tax return...then why won't he release them?

Besides the fact that Trump's tax return(s) are incredibly complicated with all of the corporate entities, schedules and other mathematical financial thingies that I am positive you wouldn't understand anyway.....His return(s) are being audited and as such are not completed or finalized. The return(s) are also part of the tax returns of multiple other people, multiple other entities.

The information will be likely changing when the audit process has been finalized. The returns are not done yet. There is no point in serving a half baked cake :-)

Never an argument made by opponents, but it became the dejour argument to debunk.

For a while, when Gay Marriage started winning in court, there were a bunch of articles in Salon, Slate, NYTimes, etc, about how gays weren't monogamous, and therefor gay marriages wouldn't be and straights needed to therefore rethink their expectation of monogamy.

Because releasing tax returns is a DC game that pretends there is transparency. How can you tell from a tax return whether a capital gain was the result of insider information? How can you tell if a business expense was reasonable?

There's an 30 something page report about Trump's relationship with Russia. One part of the report is about compromising material, which includes a video of when Trump visited Russia and hired "working girls" to relieve themselves on a bed that Obama had previously slept in.

A 2 page summary of that 30 page document was leaked to many news organizations. The original 30 page report was leaked to a few people in October of last year.

Buzzfeed decided to say screw it and released the 30 page document without making any attempt corroborate anything.

Now, 4chan, and if you know what 4chan is why would you need a "clean" version of the story, is claiming they seeded the "working girls" story to the press using a fake opposition research report supposedly created by Anti-Trump Republicans.

How can we tell from his tax return if one of his donors bought 1 million copies?

You wouldn't. But the corporate return(s) would have to tie back to any company that paid more than $500 to that corporation. And that corporation's earnings would be distributed to DJT one way or the other.

That said - I still say it's no one's damn business what his tax returns say.

Never an argument made by opponents, but it became the dejour argument to debunk.

No, that it would harm the institution of marriage was indeed an argument made by some thoughtful opponents. (Granted it's an argument the making and understanding of which required an adult attention span and some knowledge of human history beyond what's happened in the last twenty years, so, yeah, not likely to be encountered on twitter or MSM screaming contests.)

Their mistake was thinking that the ideologues on other side were arguing in good faith about "marriage". I don't think anyone here is disagreeing on Vance's essential point, which is that the ideologues pushing gay marriage had a larger agenda, most certainly aimed at causing harm to their enemies.

If you don't know what 4chan is, imagine a bunch of boys from around the world, ages 11 to 30 having an anonymous message board where they can post any random crazy thought or picture. Now imagine that board having existed for 15 years and it's developed a terrible dark streak. Now imagine that some of the posters realized they can work together to effect the real world.

He doesn't have to to either. There is no law or rule that you release your tax returns. It has been merely an informal tradition. Trump can literally tell them to STFU. He won't do that (directly) of course.

Removing himself from his positions of control on the Boards, or other positions of ownership in his corporations by selling shares to family members, selling shares to other entities or putting the shares in a blind trust is enough.

There is no need to destroy the businesses because he is now an elected official. I don't recall that there is a mandatory vow of poverty, that you should sell your homes and live in a box or that you must wear a hair shirt and scourge your back when becoming President or elected to an office. The Kennedy clan and the Clintons certainly didn't. Why should Trump be held to a different standard.

I find him so, but when he gets comfortable he gets a bit better. He's hitting a groove right now, quipping back at the reporter who tried to ask about six questions, "Ya got any more?" That's the kind of Trump style that's more fun to watch, not when he's uncomfortable and on defensive (he babbles.)

The share your really gives us excitement. Thanks for your sharing. If you feel tired at work or study try to participate in our games to bring the most exciting feeling. Thank you!hotmail login | red ball

Dust Bunny Queen said...What would the Trumpkins be saying about Hillary Clinton, if she had been the first presidential nominee in 50 years or more, to not release copies of her tax returns?

If her taxes and all returns were in the process of being audited, I would say the same thing.

Riiight.LMFAO.

And what if Hillary had claimed to have been audited every year, for the last 15 years? I can tell you; at the risk of repeating myself, I'd be laughing my fucking ass off. And if Hillary had sued a reporter/writer for alleged defamation, in supposedly calculating her net worth at a few hundred million instead of $6 billion, and if Hillary had given a deposition under oath saying that her net worth in fact changed with her own personal valuation of some of her assets, then... Well you get the picture.

My reaction would be, "So again please confirm that you are under no order to not release your returns; the IRS makes not such demand on you. This is simply your choice."

Regarding Trump picking RFK, Jr. for his vaccination commission, I understand that the latter has some concerns about some vaccinations, but I really hope that he realizes the great need for vaccinations against rabies in humans.

Trump is wrong, Rockefeller revealed his income tax forms, and CNN never published any details of the report, but reported that the memo was not verified etc-- as responsible as the NYT-- other than that we still don't know how the AFC is to be replaced only rejected after seven years. And every thing will be great and fantastic. I sure hope so.

Wonderful blog! I found it while searching on Yahoo News. Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Many thanks.tanki online 3 | 2048 online

And if Hillary had sued a reporter/writer for alleged defamation, in supposedly calculating her net worth at a few hundred million instead of $6 billion, and if Hillary had given a deposition under oath saying that her net worth in fact changed with her own personal valuation of some of her assets, then... Well you get the picture.

Well, as a private party, which Trump has been until now, he has a perfect right to sue for defamation. Whether he wins the suit is another issue, but it is his right.

I would have to see the actual deposition and the exact wording to determine what I would think about the statement of net worth changing. Your summary of that and understanding of it is likely colored by your bias. The actual wording of the questions and the responses would be needed since many of Trump's statements have already been taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Shorter....I don't trust your interpretation.

A statement of net worth that is informal, meaning just the client's best guess, is worth not much. It is a starting point. If the statement of net worth is certified by a licensed/authorized third party, then the statement may "possibly" be taken at face value but still would contain "best guesses". However, if the statement of net worth contains assets that are extremely valuable or assets that are not able to be definitively valuated (Blue Sky for example), I would require an official appraisal before being able to make any decisions.

Note: FYI Before retirement, I have been a commercial lender, financial advisor/planner and am rather familiar with reading tax returns and other financial statements of individuals as well as of companies that my clients might be considering purchasing or adding stocks to their portfolios.

Ok, while it's great that Althouse seems to take Trump at his word and offers this all without commentary, there are a few points to make here:

1) Re: Putin--I don't think a single person is saying "it is bad that Putin likes Trump." They are saying "it is bad that Putin controls Trump." Now, disagree with whether Putin controls Trump all you like, but at least address what that criticism actually is. If Putin DOES have something over Trump--financial hold, blackmail, whatever--then that is a problem, even if you love Trump and think he's going to do terrific. I don't want any foreign power to have a lever against our president--this is biggest reason so many of us rejected Hillary.

2) As for the talk of conflicts of interest mitigation, the "no foreign deals" is a good step but what does that mean? His companies won't apply for any licensing or approval overseas, even renewals of leases? No expansions whatsoever? Or does he just mean he personally won't be doing them? Because if the latter, it doesn't really address anything. And what does he mean by "putting his assets in trust"? If he still owns sizable portions of any of those companies, he still has a direct benefit from foreign power acts that help his business, and more importantly, he'd know it.

3) Finally, the "this isn't an emolument because he's exchanging hotel space for money" argument is laughable. Not only will a business expect to derive a profit, but every decision a foreign government makes--whether to grant a license to operate a casino, or a tax incentive to open a hotel, or even to rent out space in a hotel for anything more than break even--is the granting of a thing of value.

I'd expect Althouse to address some of these questions, but apparently she's on the full Trump defense and cannot think about these things. Which is a shame, because outside of the unreasonably frothy Trump haters, it would be nice to see someone address these issues with a critical eye.

Actually, Trump CAN whine about tabloid news. And do that Trumpiest of all things, which is to maintain no real principles about tabloid news, but rather to pick and choose which tabloids are good and which are bad based on whether they like him or not.

Trump's tax returns, if I am not mistaken, will include returns of his hundreds of separate enterprises, each one of which will itself be voluminous, and every line of which would be fair game to a hostile press and any political enemies he might have (he does have some I hear). In other words it would be a mighty can of worms and I will be surprised if he ever releases anything more than his 1040 long form (for which he will be roundly criticized). Am I mistaken about all this?

I am guessing that "Well, okay; after all, it's none of our business," would not be the typical response.

No, I think that would be the typical response, or at least an "I don't really care" would be a response. You see, Republicans, even life-long ones, tend to not really care whether someone is rich or poor. Usually only lefties make a big deal about that.

What can, and/or what should, a President do, to a critical news organization that he personally dislikes?

He can follow Obama's example and whine, snivel and blame the organization for everything that goes wrong instead taking the responsibility for his own actions. Have delusions about people watching Fox News in bars and restaurants and that's why you can't get sh*t done

Bars play ESPN or other sports shows. I have never EVER been to a restaurant that has a television on much less tries to entertain the dining customers with Fox News.

Actually, what Trump and his administration can do is refuse to take questions for such organization and not have any contact with them other than to disburse "Official Statements" that everyone else would get. That would be generous.

Well, if the alleged "fake news" story turns out to be true - I'm talking about the alleged or fake treasonous collusion with the Russians to hack Hillary - then he will be forced to resign must faster than Nixon held on. It will be as big as Watergate in that event. Mike Pence will then become president.

Let me add, that is not what I'm wishing for. It would be too disgusting for words, and for the country, if he were a traitor.

@Chuck - of course Trump is audited every year, or at least most years. It is a question of numbers. The IRS is on a tight budget, thanks, in particular, to its targeting Tea Party groups in the face of a Republican House. No one likes them, and esp Republicans now. So auditing money goes where it would get the biggest bang for the buck, and that means that, absent anything else, much of it goes into the auditing of high income people. Think about it - a 10% error on a $100k income is $10k, and tax there is a couple thousand. On a $100 million income, it is $10 million, and taxes are a couple million, at least. Which pays the salaries of a bunch of IRS agents. Most of what the rest of us face is essentially computerized data matching and automatic tax calculations. Statistically, most of us are unlikely to ever be really audited.

Realistically, the Clintons have had enough income that they should have been audited on occasion. Ditto for their personal foundation/slush fund. I would that it would be somewhat suspect (but not unexpected), if they hadn't been. One thing that we discovered with Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal is that the IRS has become highly politicized, so no one should be surprised if the Clintons had been given a free ride there, as Crooked Hillary was by the FBI in the face of having obviously committed probably thousands of federal felonies with her handling of her email.

Please explain. What can, and/or what should, a President do, to a critical news organization that he personally dislikes? Why should CNN "be peeing in their collective pants right about now?" You might want to reference the First Amendment in your response.

He can ignore all questions by that network. Shut them out of press briefings. Go on TV and lambaste that network. Those are just a few. And understand that I'm not supporting doing any of these things.

That said - none of the above violates the First Amendment in any way. The president isn't forced, by law or by constitution, to answer every question any reporter asks him. And the president is not using his law to stop CNN from saying anything whatsoever. There may be effects from those actions, however, but they don't violate the First Amendment either.

Buzzfeed published the fake 4Chan story about Trump. So, of course he called them out. Did they really expect to be treated like journalists after just acting as an attack vehicle on him by the most fetid segments of his opposition? I don't think so.

I don't expect that the prospect of being treated coolly by the Trump Administration would make CNN collectively pee in their pants. And of course it is not a First Amendment violation to say, "Hey, talk to the hand."

That isn't remotely what I was driving at. And you of all people should know that.

So now back to rehajm. Bullshit. As opposed to damikesc, I can say to you; bullshit. CNN isn't going to "pee in their pants" over an access dispute with a president who hates them to begin with. Since somebody raised the comparison of Obama and Fox News, let's run with that for a moment. Did Fox News "pee in their pants" over a hostile relationship with Obama? OF COURSE NOT. At the same time, Obama wasn't as childishly petulant with Fox, as Trump appears to be with his critics in the press. Obama did occasional interviews with Bill O'Reilly (who isn't nearly as much of a journalist as somebody like Jake Tapper, and perhaps therefore less of a threat than a Jake Tapper).

No, rehajm; you referenced something much more sinister, whether you intended to or not. You seem to have been thinking about something a lot nastier, more serious, more threatening, more authoritarian than mere routine press access. You know you did. And your notion goes to the heart of Trumpism, doesn't it? A kind of American Nationalist Authoritarianism.

@rhhardin, I'm sure turbotax must be extremely complicated. Don't you remember when Obama's choice for Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, was explaining that he hadn't really cheated on his taxes, it was just that turbotax was too hard?

Bruce Hayden; you are so full of shit. More than half of Trump's cabinet make, and own, a fuck of a lot more money than Trump has ever dreamed of. And their tax returns and complete financial records are being produced within a matter of weeks. Trump has had years to sort it out. It's complete baloney.

I thought Trump looked good and the press looked bad.......I think that there are Democrats in the intelligence and FBI community who will leak anything damaging they can find on DJT and that they will go out of their way to find such info. This is not a knock on the intelligence community or the FBI but the Dem operatives within those organizations.....The press is pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC, so take everything they say with a grain of salt. See the problem. Their product is news and credibility. When they get tangled in this crap, they subvert their own product. I see an analogy to the Catholic Church. The Church's product is morality and when they tolerate child abusers, they subvert their own product.

Wonderful blog! I found it while searching on Yahoo News. Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Many thanks.

Start a blog and write interesting things every day, day after day without exception, for a decade or so, and you will probably get there. There are shortcuts but they are costly in terms of money or integrity or both.

No, rehajm; you referenced something much more sinister, whether you intended to or not. You seem to have been thinking about something a lot nastier, more serious, more threatening, more authoritarian than mere routine press access. You know you did. And your notion goes to the heart of Trumpism, doesn't it? A kind of American Nationalist Authoritarianism.

I can't speak for rehajm, but the above is an example of assumption upon assumption based on nothing but one's own biases. When I read his comment, the only thought that crossed my mind was that CNN may get the cold shoulder when Trump takes office.

"No, rehajm; you referenced something much more sinister, whether you intended to or not. You seem to have been thinking about something a lot nastier, more serious, more threatening, more authoritarian than mere routine press access. You know you did. And your notion goes to the heart of Trumpism, doesn't it? A kind of American Nationalist Authoritarianism."

Michael K said...If you don't like the decision not to release the tax returns, vote against him. Easy decision.

Did you notice anything about that ?

1/11/17, 11:29 AM

i guess you could say that there were more people who didn't like the decision not to release the tax return, but i think it was likely not the main factor that caused the majority of americans to vote against trump.

Michael K said...If you don't like the decision not to release the tax returns, vote against him. Easy decision.

Did you notice anything about that ?

1/11/17, 11:29 AM

i guess you could say that there were more people who didn't like the decision not to release the tax return, but i think it was likely not the main factor that caused the majority of americans to vote against trump.

4 Chan is a trollish site. They enjoy pranking people with fake news. Remember the 'Bleed in public' hoax where they got feminists to believe this was a protest movement and suckered several feminists into posting selfies on social media with their pants and skirts soiled? That was a 4chan troll.

In this case, they made up a fake story about Trump, sent it to a NeverTrumper who bit hard and sent it to CIA which investigated it. Whoever the troll was, he's likely laughing his ass off and his troll rep at 4 Chan is surging.

A majority of Americans voted against Trump and another majority of Americans voted against Hillary. Neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote. But the Constitution doesn't require the president to receive a majority of the popular vote. If it it did then no one would have been elected president.

"1) Re: Putin--I don't think a single person is saying "it is bad that Putin likes Trump." They are saying "it is bad that Putin controls Trump." Now, disagree with whether Putin controls Trump all you like, but at least address what that criticism actually is. If Putin DOES have something over Trump--financial hold, blackmail, whatever--then that is a problem, even if you love Trump and think he's going to do terrific. I don't want any foreign power to have a lever against our president--this is biggest reason so many of us rejected Hillary. "

So your complaint is that people won't seriously address an unserious and utterly factually unsupported supposition offered by the Golden Shower Left? Dude....

Paid speeches and academic transcripts are off limits. After the 2004 election, the public found out that W's academic scores at Yale were higher than Kerry's academic scores. Kerry's billionaire wife released a part of her 2003 tax return in October 2004.

If Putin DOES have something over Trump--financial hold, blackmail, whatever--then that is a problem, even if you love Trump and think he's going to do terrific. I don't want any foreign power to have a lever against our president--this is biggest reason so many of us rejected Hillary. "

If space aliens Do have something over Hillary and she is secretly one of the shape shifting lizard people, this could be a serious problem. We should probably fire bomb Congress too, in order to get rid of the threat since you never know which of them could shape shift in front of our eyes into out lizard over Lords at any moment.

I read all about this on the internet so it must be true!!! We can never be careful enough. Right Guys???

"So your complaint is that people won't seriously address an unserious and utterly factually unsupported supposition offered by the Golden Shower Left? Dude...."

I'm ignoring the assumptions of the "Golden Shower Left" (and I don't know or want to know what you mean by "Golden Shower" as it can't be good) but if the Intel agencies are suggesting Russian interference in our election that is certainly worth investigating more. Surely if this was all happening in early 2009 and Bush's intel agencies were sending reports that a foreign power was messing with McCain's campaign you'd at least want an investigation?

You don't have to buy all the most histrionic theories to at least want this looked into. But it seems Team Trump--which giddily used rumor an innuendo to push everything from "Obama was born in Kenya" to "Ted Cruz's dad and JFK--just asking questions!"--wants to have it both ways.

"I read all about this on the internet so it must be true!!! We can never be careful enough. Right Guys???"

Ah, full Team Trump defense mode. The problem is between his most slavish defenders and the nuts on the Left it's now a game of who can sling the craziest BS. I guess this is how things are now. Enjoy.

As an ordinary voter I could give a fuck about tax returns. All of these people are spectacularly wealthy. I'm sure they use every resource to their advantage. Anyway, this was a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, not Ward and June Cleaver.

Warning: OFF TOPIC I caught some of the Senate hearing on Tillerman this morning. If you get a chance to watch the questioning by 'Little' Marco Rubio, it's well worth the laughs. Rubio tried to sound 'tough' with repeated ragging about Russia. He didn't sound tough [his voice was tremulous] but came out looking like a fool.

From the name of it, I'm sure it is! I saw some people making Facebook remarks about "urine" and "leaks" and avoided the temptation to ask what they were talking about.

My post above is more about the CIA reports on Russian interference, which I think we ought to delve into if for no other reason than to ensure that they didn't do more than the hacking and release. It's no small matter, no matter who the president is.

The Soviet culture has a history of these things. Former Romanian intelligence chief Ion Pacepa (the highest-ranking Eastern-bloc defector in the history of the Cold War) wrote a memoir, noted by columnist David Frum, that the Ceaucescu regime taped Yassir Arafat's orgies with his male bodyguards. As the world found out much later, there was significant evidence that Arafat died of AIDS. In the meantime, the link between what became the Palestinian Authority and the Soviets grew to major significance. They owned Arafat. And as much as they wished, the Israelis and Americans who knew how to out Arafat owned him too.

I Callahan said...Please explain. What can, and/or what should, a President do, to a critical news organization that he personally dislikes? Why should CNN "be peeing in their collective pants right about now?" You might want to reference the First Amendment in your response.

Er, four-man teams? Oh, I'd have a loooong list...how do you spell that name, "Chuck?"

He can ignore all questions by that network. Shut them out of press briefings. Go on TV and lambaste that network. Those are just a few. And understand that I'm not supporting doing any of these things.

"The CIA reports *intertwine* with the golden showers. They are *one in the same story*."

If the CIA is pushing bogus reports, and especially if they are doing so for partisan reasons, then Congress should be investigating the CIA. And with a Trump appointee taking over that agency, this shouldn't be difficult.

I'd rather know what the hell is going on, because either CIA is uncovering something the Russians are doing or they're engaging in some pretty slimy partisan warfare.

I'm pretty sure that that the Fake News story (which is, by all credible accounts, indeed fake and wildly unsubtantiated) is that Trump, while staying somewhere in Moscow, learned that there was a room there that Obama had slept in, and decided to pay a pair of hookers to pee on the bed while he watched. Nobody peed on anybody else, nobody drank urine, and there was no sex.

Chuck, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but you consistently beclown yourself. What penumbra did you have to illuminate to discern what Rehajm "really really meant"?

The big-firm lawyers and ethics experts say all is cool so we are supposed to fall in line. Any moron can see the conflict if his kids run the businesses that he still owns. Trump wants his businesses to succeed and increase in value whether they are run by him or by his children. There is at minimum an appearance of conflict whenever he makes a decision that has a real and definite positive impact on one of his many properties throughout the world. But the experts that he hired give it all a clean bill of health. Okay.

"I'm pretty sure that that the Fake News story (which is, by all credible accounts, indeed fake and wildly unsubtantiated) is that Trump, while staying somewhere in Moscow, learned that there was a room there that Obama had slept in, and decided to pay a pair of hookers to pee on the bed while he watched."

Isn't this the same guy who douses his hands with sanitizer all the time? Even if he hated Obama--and I don't think he actually did, regardless of his public persona--I can't picture him wanting to see that.

Obama has several memoirs and autobiographies out there in the published world (but no scholarly articles from his time as Pres of Harvard Law Review, natch). He must have known that his election would cause sales of those, and any future memoirs, to skyrocket. Does this mean he should have donated all his future royalties to charity instead of keeping them?

I've now seen three separate responses to my question about the provocation that CNN ought to be "peeing in their pants" about how Trump might respond to today's/yesterday's news in regard to Russian allegations.

All of the responses are that Trump won't supply the usual press access.

What bullshit. Again, Obama was calling out Fox News channel by name for a very long time. Nobody -- not me, for sure -- ever felt that there was any cause for Fox News to be peeing in their pants. Fox News certainly never thought so, and never acted any differently.

You all know very well that I have latched onto something deep within Trumpism; the desire to authoritatively smash the domestic enemies of Trump and Trumpists. What a bunch of nasty, dumb bumpkins.

"The big-firm lawyers and ethics experts say all is cool so we are supposed to fall in line. Any moron can see the conflict if his kids run the businesses that he still owns. Trump wants his businesses to succeed and increase in value whether they are run by him or by his children. There is at minimum an appearance of conflict whenever he makes a decision that has a real and definite positive impact on one of his many properties throughout the world. But the experts that he hired give it all a clean bill of health. Okay."

I don't know what the full solution here is--we've never had a situation like this before, with a president elected with reputedly vast foreign holdings and so much of his claimed value to be based on his name and brand. As Althouse doesn't seem to want to address it, can any ethics experts (who aren't rank partisans for either side) point out a realistic mitigation for these conflicts?

"You all know very well that I have latched onto something deep within Trumpism; the desire to authoritatively smash the domestic enemies of Trump and Trumpists. What a bunch of nasty, dumb bumpkins."

We all know you've latched onto something, but it's the teat of discredited news orgs with an agenda to destroy Trump in whatever way they can as retaliation for the dethroning of their chosen Queen.

CNN will be pissing in their pants if Trump cuts off their access to all aspects of the Federal Government. He can forbid the Pentagon from allowing them into briefings. He can deny their reporters "embed" credentials for any military operations. He can work to prevent them from gaining access to other sources within the Federal Govt by threatening termination to anyone who leaks so much as a peep to CNN. He can prevent them from getting the access and stories they so crave, which (assuming there is still a vestige of journalistic integrity at CNN) will wound them deeply. Will they shrug it off in public and on the air? Yeah, for a little while. After 2 years of hardly any scoops and with most of the Fed Govt unwilling to talk with them, CNN will most definitely be pissing their pants. To think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of journalists, for whom Access is Everything.

There are two meanings for "golden shower." One is a sexual practice that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood indulged in with Havelock Ellis, under the name "liquid gold" or undinism. The other is a journalistic practice which the left indulges in when it uncritically absorbs input from any source whatsoever which is critical of Trump and then passes on the rumor in a similar manner to anyone who is receptive. It is also called "fake news" but there is an atmosphere of uncontained excitement about disseminating filth which makes "golden shower" a better name for this kind of journalism.

I'm looking forward to hear who is the pick for Scalia's successor. That was a piece of news at the presser. I would have bet on Pryor, but if Leo and DeMint are leading the search, not Sessions, maybe not. A little surprised Trump himself would meet with candidates at this stage. Maybe that was shorthand for the royal we.

"After 2 years of hardly any scoops and with most of the Fed Govt unwilling to talk with them, CNN will most definitely be pissing their pants. To think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of journalists, for whom Access is Everything."

"Access is Everything" is a huge bug, not a feature, of the American press anyways. Seems like people of most political persuasions would agree with that, if they thought about it a little.

Without their precious Access, what would a news organization do? It would have to adapt, but it would also be liberated from any need to kiss ass. There's a lot of potential win there.

Brando -- It is not that complicated. All he has to do is sell all his business assets, including his brand, and put the proceeds into a blind trust. Maybe he will take a bit of a hit on the fire-sale, though I believe there are tax benefits for this type of situation that would make up for some or all of his loss. If he isn't prepared to do that he shouldn't have run for president.

The big-firm lawyers and ethics experts say all is cool so we are supposed to fall in line. Any moron can see the conflict if his kids run the businesses that he still owns. Trump wants his businesses to succeed and increase in value whether they are run by him or by his children. There is at minimum an appearance of conflict whenever he makes a decision that has a real and definite positive impact on one of his many properties throughout the world. But the experts that he hired give it all a clean bill of health. Okay."

I believe it goes quite far in removing the question from the legal realm. What remains is and will always be the political and you can never completely eliminate from the political question. "Appearance" of conflict can't be eliminated.

I don't expect that the prospect of being treated coolly by the Trump Administration would make CNN collectively pee in their pants. And of course it is not a First Amendment violation to say, "Hey, talk to the hand."

That isn't remotely what I was driving at. And you of all people should know that.

In this case, the media needs ACCESS more than almost anything else. If they don't have access to people, "doing their job" becomes more of a challenge and they will have to rely on Democrats on McCain/Graham for most of their information. That will, in the end, severely damage their product. When any media loses access, their lose their usefulness.

While not a thoroughly apt example, imagine, say, SI if the NFL decided to cut them off from all coverage. Would it hurt the NFL? Yeah, some. It would DEVASTATE SI, however, and the NFL can likely sustain its losses far better than SI could.

CNN isn't exactly rolling in cash nor is it bringing in such massive revenue to its parent company that their existence is something that can be guaranteed if they start losing money.

Having the White House refuse to even speak to you and to have them able to provide legitimate reasons why could be devastating. This isn't like Obama's petulant FNC obsession. This is a President-Elect that they reported on a terrible report that had little actual corroboration of its claims and that looks like a 4chan troll job. After spending months pimping Clinton (Cuomo did say it was ILLEGAL for non-journalists to read the Wikileaks info) and griping about "fake news".

They might still find a few sources, but I suspect Trump is going to have a admin that leaks less than most.

I'm ignoring the assumptions of the "Golden Shower Left" (and I don't know or want to know what you mean by "Golden Shower" as it can't be good) but if the Intel agencies are suggesting Russian interference in our election that is certainly worth investigating more. Surely if this was all happening in early 2009 and Bush's intel agencies were sending reports that a foreign power was messing with McCain's campaign you'd at least want an investigation?

Turns out we also have evidence of Ukrainian interference to try and help Hillary with them providing the information that got Manafort fired. I'm not saying that Hillary is obviously a Ukrainian mole, but this happens, has happened, and will happen. Obama's lazy response to OPM invited more of it.

You don't have to buy all the most histrionic theories to at least want this looked into. But it seems Team Trump--which giddily used rumor an innuendo to push everything from "Obama was born in Kenya" to "Ted Cruz's dad and JFK--just asking questions!"--wants to have it both ways.

And I can see that. But until I see any evidence that there is a problem, I can't worry about it. I don't see how Trump could possibly do MORE for Putin than Hillary has done. And given that we have two chief rivals (Russia and China), it might be worth considering that our BIGGEST rival might not be Russia.

...we should also mention that the same people obsessed with Russian interference seem WAY less interested in the anti-fracking movement which is closely tied to Russia and directly helps Russia at our expense.

The Soviet culture has a history of these things. Former Romanian intelligence chief Ion Pacepa (the highest-ranking Eastern-bloc defector in the history of the Cold War) wrote a memoir

It was really good, mind you.

If the CIA is pushing bogus reports, and especially if they are doing so for partisan reasons, then Congress should be investigating the CIA. And with a Trump appointee taking over that agency, this shouldn't be difficult.

From what I gather, they didn't share this with Trump and were going to use it as an example of terrible info, to show Trump that trusting his private sources was not a good idea. Don't know how it got to others.

"Brando -- It is not that complicated. All he has to do is sell all his business assets, including his brand, and put the proceeds into a blind trust. Maybe he will take a bit of a hit on the fire-sale, though I believe there are tax benefits for this type of situation that would make up for some or all of his loss. If he isn't prepared to do that he shouldn't have run for president."

That would surely fix the problem (and it wouldn't have to be a fire sale--the trust could sell the assets over time) but that'll happen when pigs fly. I think the most likely scenario is he says "my interests coincide perfectly with the country's" and the GOP decides "ok, sure, just sign our legislation" and that'll be that. Ethics are just a partisan matter now.

"Turns out we also have evidence of Ukrainian interference to try and help Hillary with them providing the information that got Manafort fired. I'm not saying that Hillary is obviously a Ukrainian mole, but this happens, has happened, and will happen. Obama's lazy response to OPM invited more of it."

All of this justifies a thorough investigation. Both to determine if Russia is doing anything like this, and to determine if our intel agencies are themselves pushing phony stories for partisan purposes.

However, it in no way follows from this that CNN (or any thusly treated news organization) should "be peeing in their collective pants right about now."

Maybe I just see some inside baseball where others don't. Ever met a Washington correspondent for print or TV? Do you think they believe The White House is a plum assignment? Do you think they might be competitive? Driven? Arrogant?

There's a pecking order in The White House press room. Reporters historically fight amongst themselves who gets the front row and who sits in the back. Presidents traditionally respect the batting order, more or less. One of the worst assignments is standing in the gravel pit overlooking the front lawn- Pebble Beach.

Today in one quick move Trump put CNN on notice that he is displeased. If you are a CNN personality you were put on notice that instead of ratings and career-making access before the state of the union you might be covering the state of the front lawn from Pebble Beach.

Brando -- I think it would have to be a fire sale since if they are sold over time, Trump would know what was sold when and would have an incentive to increase the value of the property prior to their sale.

"Brando -- I think it would have to be a fire sale since if they are sold over time, Trump would know what was sold when and would have an incentive to increase the value of the property prior to their sale."

But if they were sold by the blind trust wouldn't that prevent him from knowing when he still owned what?

I'm not sure who it's supposed to be better (or worse) for. Since we don't know or likely care who made this up does better or worse even factor in? I mean other than the total embarrassment for people who believed such an obvious hoax?